Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 Dear sri padmanabhan swami thank you for the thiruiruththam and ashta buyakaram references on the same context of our decent man krisNa having a amorous look at the nayakis. On this ashtabuyakaram paasuram referred by you, I wrote the following, of course with a different outlook. but that reference is quite nice. thought will share with all, since i recall this may be in malaola net groups then [may be 1999]. quote -- Dear Srivaishnava perunthagaiyeer, In the thiru ashtabujakaram group of paasurams, the last line reads 'attabuyakaraththEn enRarE' in the 4000 divya prabandam books (2 books published by different persons) I have. But Srimaan Madhavakkannan Swamy (MK) has mentioned attabuyakaraththaan. Please advise me, if, I have to correct both the books for any printing mistake, and if I am wrong. Attabuyakaraththaan is one residing in the place called attabuyakaram. Further attabuyakaraththaan- avan -III person - a sort of anniyaththanam - separation is inherent in this addressing. Whereas, if, it is addressed as attabuyakaraththEn, immediately honey is in the tongue. Even while pronouncing the word, an intimacy develops. 'KaNNamma enRa pEr sollum pothilE enthan naavilE amudhu ooruthE' says a krishna baktha who enjoyed kannan as kannamma, as his ardent lover. Also a thought went like this- in kongu tamil dialect, words end as 'enna solluthEn' etc for the first person while talking. So the poet might have written as though the Lord uses the same dialect as kongu locals speak. But this kshetram is not in Erode or Darmapuri district, but in Kancheepuram where the dialect is clear. So no chance for the poet to use such a dialect. The lord answers the vanchi, parakaala naayaki (PN), as I am the thEn. Because she is in love, He is the sudha rasam or madhu rasam for her. Perhaps, he only said attabuyakaraththaan only but she heard it as thEn (because of kaathanmai) and recorded in the paasuram as thEn. The colour confusion for PN is very much prevalent in this kshetram also. iruNda ambutham pOnRu amchudar pOnRu alai kadal pOnRu karunkadal pOnRu pOthavizh kaayaam poo neelam punaintha mEgam kaaviyoppaar kadalEyumoppaar According to the mental faculty at the moment, the colour of the Lord is also changes for PN. The bakthaas can link the 'kaakkai chiraginilE nandalala' for added taste here. thanjam ivarkku en valaiyum nillaa nenjamum thammathE sinthiththErku vanji marungul nerunga nOkki vaai thiranthu onRu paniththathu uNdu nanjam udaiththivar nOkkum nOkkam naan ivar thammai ariya maattEn anjuvan ivar aar kol enna attabuyakaraththEn enRaarE. Just do a little readjustment of words in this paasuram. Then it is really thEn, honey. When she heard the name attabuyakaraththEn, the body bent in prostration and in love, with the idea of taking saraNaagati -thanjam ivarkku ena vaLaiyum (en -ena -the poetic license to shorten). The basic character of the mind is nicely described as nillaa nenjam. It will not stick to one thought and be there at least for few seconds. It will jump immediately to another. So, it is nillaa nenjam. Here Arjunaa's words are on the mind -the manam is worth considering. chanchalam hi mana: krshna pramathi balavad druDam thasyaaham nigraham manyE vaayOriva sudushkaram - 6 - 34 Hey krishnaa, the mind is wavery in nature, shaky to its core, strong basically. I consider, to control this mind, it is difficult like controlling the wind. So nillaa nenjam. But this nillaa nenjamum sinthithErku thammathe. Since PN is always thinking about attabuyakaraththEn, she is qualified to call herself as sinthiththErku. Since the thoughts are on him the nillaa nenjam has surrendered to attabuyakaraththEn - so thammathE. So she declares my mind though wavery in nature is already fixed on him. So first it is bodily saranaagati - next mentally surrendered. Next she decalres 'vanji marungul nerunga nOkki vaai thiranthu onRu paNiththathu uNdu' - he came very near me and said one thing- what is that? - simple- the acceptance of the saranaagati and assurance of the moksham -it cannot be said openly you see - so nerunga nOkki vaai thiranthu onru paNiththathu. After that ' ivar nokkum nanjam udaiththu - his paarvai is having poison - towards whom? - those who are desirous of doing harm to his bhagavathaas like PN. She has realised that his paarvai is with kaarunyam to her but at the same time opponents to her etc have to be afraid of. Is it not said that narasimhan with all his fury towards hiraNyakasibu was at the same time having kaaruNyam to prahlaada who was also standing in the same place. You may wonder both are possible at the same time. But proof is available in the narasimha avathaaram. naan ivar nokkam thannai ariya maattEn- athanaal anjuvan. I do not his idea or aim, why suddenly he sees like this (with nanjam). As a result of this ignorance on his nOkkam- anjuvan, otherwise I am not at all afraid, because he has identified himself to me as attabuyakaraththEn. Any doubts about who issues the acceptance chit for prapatti- visit attabuyakaram and realise for yourself. Already Srimaan Murlidhar Rangaswamy has said 'tad vishno: paramam padam sadaa pascyanti sooraya' in attabuyakaram. Enjoy the thEn by reading once more Dasan Vasudevan M.G. unquote Dhasan MGVasudevan > > nsp [sMTP:aazhwar] > Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:32 PM > ramanuja; oppiliappan > Cc: M.G.Vasudevan > Re: [ramanuja] hey decent man > > Dear shri vAsudEvan swAmi, > > AzhwAr descriptions of amourous glances on a maiden can never be more precise. This so because, she has been subject to such looks. > > The words "She doesnt mind such glances but is worried that her mother will see it" has provoked me into talking a pAsuram from thiru-virutham > "kayalO! numa kaNgaL enRu kaLiRu vinavi niRREr, > ayalOr aRiyilum, Edhenna vArthai..." thiru virutham 15 > > The damsel tells it to the person who had actually come in search of elephant but expresses the opinion that her eyes are like fish. She immediately responds that " What are you talking. What will happen if others hear it?" one interpretation is that she does not mind it but is only worried about the society. That is thiru virutham . > > As far as thiru mozhi is concerned I always regard the atta puyakaram thiru mozhi and this thiru nAgai thiru mozhi as similar. Somehow, both rings the same tone. A sample. > > "vanji marungul nerunga nOkki, vAi thiRandhu onRu paNithadhu vuNdu, > nanjam vudaithu ivar nOkkum nOkkam..." periya thiru mozhi 2-8-9 > > The looks are close to the middle portion of the girl-idai-- it is venomous, is the excalamation by AzhwAr. That is again a compliment given by parakAla nAyaki towards the Lord for His scrutiny of AzhwAr's physical profile. How is that? > > By the way "ivaL vAyil nal vEdham" is a suggestion that one should indulge in good vEdic portions-primarily the talk of the Lord and His auspicious qualities-bhagawadh vishayam.sAma vEdham, purusha sUktham and even thiru-voi-mozhi can be considered so. Is it not? > > rAmAnuja dhAsan > vanamamalai padmanabhan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.